Prospective, randomized cost analysis of anesthesia with remifentanil combined with propofol, desflurane or sevoflurane for otorhinolaryngeal surgery

Study of Rocuronium-Sugammadex as an Alternative to Succinylcholine-Cisatracurium in Microlaryngeal Surgery

Microlaryngeal surgery (ML) is a short procedure that requires a deep neuromuscular blockade to provide optimum surgical conditions. Succinylcholine is a relaxant widely used but involves numerous complications. One valid alternative is rocuronium, with a specific antagonist, sugammadex. The primary objective was to assess the surgical conditions in ML according to the relaxant. The secondary objectives were to assess intubation conditions and intraoperative and immediate postoperative adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized study.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of patients scheduled for ML randomized into two groups according to relaxant. Neuromuscular blockade was recorded after administration and during ML surgery. Surgical conditions were assessed using the ML Rating Scale, intubation conditions, remifentanil doses, intraoperative complications, surgery time, emergence time, and complications in the postanesthesia care unit.

RESULTS

Two hundred five patients were included (rocuronium = 103, succinylcholine = 102). Train-of-four values were higher for rocuronium, though the otorhinolaryngology surgical conditions were significantly better in that group (rocuronium = 5.54 ± 1.39 points; succinylcholine = 9.13 ± 1.99 points). Intubation conditions were similar in both groups. Remifentanil doses were higher for succinylcholine (P < .001) (rocuronium = 0.102 ± 0.05 μg/kg/min; succinylcholine = 0.201 ± 0.05 μg/kg/min). There were no differences in the duration of surgery, but the time to awakening was significantly longer for succinylcholine (rocuronium = 3.82 ± 1.38 minutes, succinylcholine = 9.18 ± 2.04 minutes, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rocuronium provides better surgical conditions and allows for the use of lower doses of remifentanil as compared to succinylcholine and cisatracurium in ML. This makes it possible to decrease the time to awakening and the complications associated with high doses of remifentanil.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1b Laryngoscope, 131:E212-E218, 2021.

[Anesthesia recovery comparison between remifentanil-propofol and remifentanil-desflurane guided by Bispectral Index® monitoring]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is a strong demand for fast and predictable anesthesia recovery with few side effects. Choice of the hypnotic agent could impact on that. This study investigated the differences between recoveries after remifentanil-propofol and remifentanil-desflurane anesthesias guided by bispectral index (BIS^®).

METHODS

Forty patients were randomly assigned into 2 groups according to the anesthesia technique applied: remifentanil-propofol (REM-PRO) and remifentanil-desflurane (REM-DES). After the discontinuation of the anesthetics, the times to extubation, to obey commands and to recover the airway protection reflex were recorted. In the post-anesthetic recovery room (PACU) it was recorded the occurrence of nausea and vomiting (PONV), scores of Ramsay sedation scale and of numeric pain scale (NPS), morphine dose and length of stay in the unit.

RESULTS

Data from 38 patients were analyzed: 18 from REM-PRO and 20 from REM-DES group. Anesthesia times were similar (REM-PRO=193min, SD 79.9 vs. 175.7min, SD 87.9 REM-DES; p=0.5). REM-DES had shorter times than REM-PRO group: time to follow command (8.5min; SD 3.0 vs. 5.6min; SD 2.5; p=0.0) and extubation time (6.2 minutes; 3.1-8.5 vs. 9.5 minutes; 4.9-14.4; p=0.0). Times to recover airway protective reflex were similar: 16 patients from REM-PRO (88.9%) restored the airway protective reflex 2min after extubation vs. 17 from REM-DES (89.5%); and 2 patients from REM-PRO (11.1%) vs. 2 from REM-DES (10.5%) 6min after extubation, p=1. Ramsay sedation score, NPS, PONV incidents, morphine dose and PACU stay of length PACU were also similar.

CONCLUSION

Remifentanil-desflurane-based anesthesia has a faster extubation time and to follow command than remifentanil-propofol-based anesthesia when both guided by BIS^®.

[Comparison of two opioids with different kinetics for intravenous analgesia in outpatient multiple third molar avulsions]

INTRODUCTION

We had for aim to compare the effects of intra-operative opioid analgesia according to the drug kinetics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective, controlled, randomized, double-blinded trial including 60 patients scheduled for ambulatory multiple third molar avulsion. The general anesthesia, performed with propofol and analgesia was a target-controlled infusion of either remifentanil or sufentanil. The anesthesia was set to reach an optimal bispectral index and adjusted to a clinical target throughout the procedure. The main endpoints were: postoperative request for morphine and other opioids; postoperative pain; postoperative adverse effects of opioids.

RESULTS

In the post-operative care unit (French acronym PACU), patients who received remifentanil were extubated earlier (17 vs. 26 min.), but had more pain and required twice more morphine for analgesia (6 vs. 3 mg), than those who had received sufentanil. However, the need for post-surgery oral opioid intake was greater in the sufentanil group, so the overall postoperative opioid consumption and patient satisfaction were identical in both groups. The time spent in the PACU was also identical for both groups.

DISCUSSION

Using an ultra-short kinetic opioid such as remifentanil does not seem useful, since the shorter delay before extubation is compensated by a greater need for morphine in the PACU.

Effect of sevoflurane versus propofol-based anesthesia on the hemodynamic response and recovery characteristics in patients undergoing microlaryngeal surgery

Background:

This randomized study was conducted to compare the hemodynamic changes and emergence characteristics of sevoflurane versus propofol anesthesia for microlaryngeal surgery.

Methods:

Forty adult patients undergoing microlaryngoscopy were randomly allocated into two groups. In propofol group, anesthesia was induced with 2-3 mg/kg propofol and maintained with propofol infusion 50-200 μg/kg/h. In sevoflurane group induction was carried out with 5-8% sevoflurane and maintained with sevoflurane in nitrous oxide and oxygen. The propofol and sevoflurane concentrations were adjusted to maintain the bispectral index of 40-60. All patients received fentanyl 2 μg/kg before induction and succinylcholine 2 mg/kg to facilitate tracheal intubation. The hemodynamic changes during induction and suspension laryngoscopy were compared. In addition, the emergence time, time to extubation, and recovery were assessed.

Results:

The changes in heart rate were comparable. The mean arterial pressure was significantly lower after induction and higher at insertion of operating laryngoscope in propofol group as compared to sevoflurane group. More patients in propofol group had episodes of hypotension and hypertension than sevoflurane group. The emergence time, extubation times, and recovery time were similar in both groups.

Conclusion:

We found that sevoflurane showed advantage over propofol in respect of intraoperative cardiovascular stability without increasing recovery time.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil-based general anesthesia: a survey of clinical economics under the Japanese health care system

PURPOSE

Remifentanil has been available in Japan for 3 years. The use of this new opioid is considered a useful adjuvant to general anesthesia. Knowing the exact cost-effectiveness of remifentanil should lead to improved anesthetic outcomes with a reasonable cost.

METHODS

This single-blinded, prospective, randomized study compared the cost of remifentanil-based general anesthesia combined with isoflurane, sevoflurane, or propofol with fentanyl-based conventional techniques in 210 women who underwent breast surgeries.

RESULTS

Remifentanil-based general anesthesia was no more expensive than fentanyl-based conventional anesthesia. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly less frequent after remifentanil-based than fentanyl-based anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that remifentanil-based general anesthesia is no more expensive than conventional fentanyl-based anesthesia under the Japanese health care system because of the small difference in price between remifentanil and fentanyl.

Using remifentanil and sufentanil in functional endoscopic sinus surgery to improve surgical conditions

The purpose of the study was to compare three types of general anesthesia for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) with controlled hypotension measuring the quality of visibility of the surgical field and the blood loss during the operation. Seventy-one patients underwent endoscopic ethmoidectomy bilaterally for nasal polyposis and/or chronic sinusitis. The patients were divided into three groups according to the type of anesthesia they had: group A (sufentanil/sevoflurane), group B (remifentanil/propofol), and group C (fentanyl/isoflurane). The mean estimated blood loss for group A was 117.83 ml, for group B it was 100.5 ml and for group C it was 198.89 ml. The average quality of visibility of the surgical field was 1.57 for group A, 1.3 for group B and 2.79 for group C. The quantity of blood loss (p < 0.01) and the visibility of the surgical field (p < 0.001) demonstrated a difference among the three groups. Remifentanil and sufentanil during functional ESS enable controlled hypotension and a general improvement in surgical conditions.

Remifentanil

Remifentanil (Ultiva), a fentanyl derivative, is an ultra-short acting, nonspecific esterase-metabolised, selective mu-opioid receptor agonist, with a pharmacodynamic profile typical of opioid analgesic agents. Notably, the esterase linkage in remifentanil results in a unique and favourable pharmacokinetic profile for this class of agent. Adjunctive intravenous remifentanil during general anaesthesia is an effective and generally well tolerated opioid analgesic in a broad spectrum of patients, including adults and paediatric patients, undergoing several types of surgical procedures in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Remifentanil is efficacious in combination with intravenous or volatile hypnotic agents, with these regimens generally being at least as effective as fentanyl- or alfentanil-containing regimens in terms of attenuation of haemodynamic, autonomic and somatic intraoperative responses, and postoperative recovery parameters. The rapid offset of action and short context-sensitive half-time of remifentanil, irrespective of the duration of the infusion, makes the drug a valuable opioid analgesic option for use during balanced general inhalational or total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) where rapid, titratable, intense analgesia of variable duration, and a fast and predictable recovery are required.

Cost analyses of remifentanil, mivacurium and ropivacaine - a systematic review

Remifentanil, mivacurium and ropivacaine are the latest innovations in clinical anaesthesia and have gained increasing importance in daily practise due to their unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. However, drug acquisition costs for these agents are considerably higher in most countries than for comparable substances. This review provides a systematic, critical appraisal of pharmacoeconomic studies with remifentanil, mivacurium and ropivacaine, primarily based on prospective, randomised trials. Results from analyses using cost-minimising techniques stress the issue of the higher drug acquisition costs. However, studies using a more sophisticated method (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) indicate comparable costs or even financial advantage in favour of the newer investigative drugs remifentanil, mivacurium and ropivacaine.